Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 8, 2012 12:30pm-1:00pm PST

12:30 pm
we've come off of the dot-com boom at the end of 20th century. and went into the housing boom that peaked in 2008. and you can see that jobs reflect those. building permits reflect those very -- a little more substantially, especially in the last couple years. you can see construction spending which is actually kind of a measure of the estimated construction value of acting building permits. kind of a crazy concept. it's kind of a measure of construction spending. varies even more widely than the other two components. a quick look at the data or detailed look of the data indicates that san francisco's economic recovery continued in 2011. jobs were up 2%.
12:31 pm
they're at 5 69,000 jobs at the end of 2011. unemployment was down to 8.6% from 9.5%. total wages earned city-wide were up 8% to 45 billion. this construction spending or cost estimate number was at 3.4 billion, which is up 52% over the year previously. taxable sales was up. city revenue was up a little. and city expenditures were flat from the previous year, which is a good thing and they're less than revenues. in terms of a sneak peek of 2012, looks like recovery is continuing. we've got a nonseasonally adjusted unemployment rate as of september 2012, it's down to 6.9% from annual average in 2011 of 8.6%. and we've got a gain of almost 10,000 jobs, up 2%, since the
12:32 pm
beginning of the year. this is employment development department data, their monthly labor force report release. and on that note, i conclude my briefing and entertain any questions or comments you might have. >> commissioner wu. >> i just wanted to ask on the point that you made that the data will be available electronically, that means sort of in its raw form for the public to use? >> exactly. >> i think it would be great at that time to have some sort of public training. my guess is a lot of people are really interested in neighborhood scale data. so, looking at the map, some of the data is -- you have the boundaries quite large. so, to look -- to help them figure out how to use that to sort of answer the questions people in neighborhoods are looking for. >> okay, yeah. definitely. >> commissioner antonini. >> a couple things i read in a little more depth through most
12:33 pm
of this. one thing that seemed a little curious to me is a category private household employees, and that number increased a lot from 2002 to 2011. i'm not sure how these are really being categorized. there are many instances where in a private home you'll employ someone often as an outside contractor, like a gardner and he or she will do a number of different jobs in a given day. they will have many different employers, of course. i'm not quite sure how that does -- those figures are compiled. also in similar ways, people may not be employed exclusively by one person. they might be employed by a lot of different people. so, are we taking those things into account when we bring these numbers up, which seem pretty high to me? >> i think the short answer is
12:34 pm
yes, it's taken into consideration. i think the measure is -- the first point that that data was contained within the cie sector up until 2009. and, so, it pops out separately. finally edd separated it out. and it's basically a measure of households who employ people. and i can get some clarification for you about exactly what it covers. caregivers, cooks, cleaners, like that. >> as i say, when you compare these and there are instances where people can work for multiple employers, a case in point is hygienists work for me, and they make work for another dentist or even two other dentists. but more typically, a lot of other jobs, people are single employer more typically than household.
12:35 pm
so, you may not be comparing apples to apples when you look at the numbers of people. and i think that's something the public has to -- when they read this report, there's a lot more fractionalization in that category, i would think. >> that's true. it's also important to understand that the employment number, the job number we give you is a job number from edd and it's both part time and full time. and any time there is a second job, somebody has a second job, that's actually counted as another job in the economy. so, you're right. it's important when you try to use this data to understand exactly what's in it, it's very gross measure. more importantly for us, we're sort of following the trend up or down. >> along those same lines, you start going into different professions and job descriptions and you do per capita income. again, it's important to know if someone is, you know, a
12:36 pm
single employer because oftentimes some of the lower paying jobs will be the fact that you may be getting the data from one of these jobs, not the multiple jobs that are -- because of the nature of the work it lends itself to having different employers. another thing i came up with here was the transportation piece. and i saw a huge number rider ship on the san bruno lines and historically the geary line was always the heaviest and the judah line for the light rail which remained real heavy, but i'm sort of surprised why the san bruno lines were as heavy as they are and that might be something we really want to look at for the future to see if there's anyway -- i know we'll have the central subway, but that won't necessarily deal with that particular section of the city. most typically that's southeastern san francisco. the only thing i know of that would be close to there might
12:37 pm
be the caltrain where there's a station at potrero hill and there used to be one at paul. i don't know it's operational any more. there's the bayview station just at the san francisco, san mateo county line. but certainly bears paying attention in trying to figure out what steps can be made to, you know, go with light rail or some sort of other service that would get people to that area a lot quicker than the likely hour-plus trip it takes it from downtown to get out to some of those areas. those were the things -- and i also was very happy to see, -- again, it's hard to do these categorizations, but $81,000 earnings per worker is a pretty significant amount of money. i know there's a wide discrepancy depending on the types of jobs. but it's probably one of the higher averages per capita or in the united states, i would
12:38 pm
think. >> yeah, definitely, it reflects the economy we have that we're blessed with both in san francisco and regionally. >> that's a very good report. i plan to spend more time reading it in even more detail and i may have >> very good. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i appreciate the reporting, like san francisco in the region, small part [speaker not understood]. there is the physical growth of the city. there is the population density, which affects much of the decisions we are making here. * tech difficulty there is job density. and the question i have for you is while you are speaking about san francisco population and compared to jobs in san francisco, the number i am interested in is how many san francisco residents are holding the jobs you are describing
12:39 pm
because that has a direct bearing on housing, particularly affordable housing because lots of the job growth is in new types of jobs. and [speaker not understood] there are lower paying jobs, but that correlation, i think, is of extreme importance for this particular commission and for that matter everybody else. because the growth of the city and the healthy job housing balances what we are basically tasked to do here. >> absolutely. i don't know that specific number right now, but i've looked at that number over a long -- period of time through my career in the city. in general, as you know, it's about 50%. * . i think it was above 50% in the early '80s and '90s. i think it's dropped down a little less than it was. >> i think in particular, in support of the planning department, to see where job growth is physically as well as
12:40 pm
sector wise, including who are manning these jobs would be an information piece which i think the city should actually start to put as part of this update because it will resolve and answer many of the criticisms we are getting. we're not building enough affordable housing. it will also help us better understand when we are challenged by regional growth questions where obviously based on what i'm seeing here, san francisco is already carrying a larger burden or a larger part of the [speaker not understood]. if that fine tuning could be brought forward at some point, i would be very, very interested in those data. >> great. i'll look into that. >> thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, just to clarify. on page 17 you have a table of employment concentration by land use in 2011 and it's by like financial some a north central, southwest.
12:41 pm
do those terms then correspond to the map 1.1 on page 25 that lays out where these districts are? >> yes. >> okay. and then given that civic center extends quite a bit to the east, do you know if it includes the union square area or is that -- >> civic center is commerce and industry district? >> yes. >> i don't believe it includes union square. i think that's within the financial district. >> then i'm curious as to why civic center has 27% of the hotel concentration. it seems awfully high to me. >> that would be -- >> it runs along the north part of market, but there's a little jog that -- anyway, if you could -- it's not a big thing. >> no, no, it's not. the way to read that is that that district has 17% of all hotel employment. >> oh, okay, all right.
12:42 pm
>> that's kind of an odd thing. >> another comment following up on commissioner antonini's observation about the ridership figures. i mean, he's right. san bruno experienced a 99.6% increase. >> right. >> at the same time ingleside increased by 144.6. and other lines like bryant went down by 32%. number wise it isn't as significant as the other two i mentioned, but there seems to be a lot of increase and decrease fluctuations going on. and it might be interesting to know from muni, you know, why that's happening. >> i'll ask them and get back to you. >> okay. >> commissioner borden. >> yes, that's a good question. what is done with this report? i mean, i love getting this data and information, but does the mta look at this report and
12:43 pm
make decisions or does it inform, say, their transit projects and the way that they're looking at some of the work that they're implementing? do other departments and agencies, you know, building department, you know, do they review this report, does anything happen with it? >> it goes out as distributed to a small group of folks inside the city and outside the city that have interest in it. and refer to it during the course of the year. we use it internally in the department. i think some of the other departments would use it, but as you can see from the report itself, it's a particular take on the data that's related to the economy and to land use and land use issues. so, it can inform a certain, you know, arena of analysis and research. but oftentimes it probably would not be sufficient in terms of the types of information it has or the level of detail or the way it's chopped up.
12:44 pm
to where they address specific project-related issues of our agency. so, i'm sure they're doing their own data analysis and collection. but as kind of a general broad brush statement of the economy and land use in that linkage, it paints that picture and it's used for that purpose. >> if i might add, too, i think the report is -- the data that's embedded in the report is used in different ways by different agencies. there is a lot of data in here we use for different purposes other than just this report, especially growth data. and, so, that data is often used by other departments and other agencies as well. >> so, it's interesting. so, other -- how do we -- [speaker not understood] for the city, i know. is that person or person that work with the mayor's office of economic development have a chief economic officer or whatever, does that person look at this data and look at some of the other data sets? do we do any modeling? i was just about that in terms
12:45 pm
of other cities, when fresno redid their general plan, they actually used urban footprint and did digital modeling based on data like this they had where they should do their growth concentration. do we ever do anything like that with our data? >> well, we haven't done any footprint analysis yet. somebody may. i think to the degree that the data would be useful for somebody's analysis, they would go to it. it has a nice consistent time series, the value it's been creating the last 20 years. most analysis of a project would need additional information that they would probably go out and get on their own. but this would be the first point if we were going to update pieces of the general plan, et cetera, this is one of the documents we would go to. >> and is this open data website so that other sites could actually mine our data and put it -- we have the whole
12:46 pm
open data initiative. i'm just wondering if this data is up loaded into that so that other people can use it for modeling or running queries. >> well, it hasn't been to date, but that's what we'd like to do. so, we hope to do that this summer, by this summer. >> okay. and i guess -- i know this is much more around like building permits and land use. i guess we don't have like a tourism sort of data. i guess that puts some other separate -- i know travel has tour simulated data, but we don't include that in our commercial industry? >> not so much, not so much. we have a little of it in the downtown monitoring report in terms of hotel vacancy rates and room rates. but, again, you know, some of this information is provided as kind of a little spice and kind of first window, first glance at that arena. so, we don't collect data extensively and report extensively on tourist industry.
12:47 pm
>> to me that kind of -- in the future -- i'm not going to criticize the department. i guess i'm actually criticizing the city in not being more comprehensive or collecting all this data which is amazing. but data is not amazing if you don't do anything with it. so, that is kind of the frustration with me. such great analytical capabilities to take data and do modeling and make smarter decisions. not to put it back in that department, but eversiti that's collecting data, is there a way to bring it together so we can actually see something. so that when the transit project is looking at which routes, you know, they look at first, would they look at san bruno over, you know, someplace in mission bay that could wait. i don't know. but my point is if we had all these different data sets together, you could make those kind of informed decisions. i guess i would just say that i think, you know, i really
12:48 pm
enjoyed reading it. i think it's a great report. if there is a way to better share this data across the city, it doesn't just sit on a shelf every year, that you spend all this time and nobody actually does anything with it, you know? >> exactly, exactly. i think there are two points to keep in mind. one is that the window on the tourist economy from the commerce and industry report is that hotel category. that's kind of a way into the tourist industry in terms of a land use and the connection to land use and land use policy, which is what this report was focused on. the second thing, again, this is really a data report. it's not an analytic report. and it gives us a good sort of initial overview of some things. but the department itself has a ton of other data that we use to inform all the analysis we do and other agencies as well, but this is one piece of it. >> great.
12:49 pm
i love our case reports, but i don't usually see a lot of data in them. so, just sort of kind of just a point. i love that we're doing these reports. i think they're really informative, but they're not really informative until you kind of dig a little deeper. so, to the extent that, you know, director ram and other city agencies can kind of take out key learnings that we've discovered here and share them would be great. >> definitely. agreed. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. along those same lines, i think that this is a great starting point, but only if we use it practically and use it as a tool to help us make some of our decisions. for example, the whole survey, as was mentioned earlier, the approximately 50% of the jobs in san francisco are held by nonresidents, a little bit more, i think. and i think we need -- the city should undertake focus groups
12:50 pm
with major employers in san francisco privately as well as their own city employees, which is a large employment group. ucsf and other state or federal and state employees. and have focus groups ask questions, why do you not live in san francisco? is it a cost factor? is it the type of housing that's available doesn't suit your needs? are the schools not up to your expectations, or you're not assured of a neighborhood school? how about park and rec? but try to consebastianvthv traitv -- concentrate on the factors because if we knew what it was keeping people from living here that work here we would be able to make decisions to incline more people, create housing they want at a cross level, if possible. on the other side of the coin that was not mentioned, it may not be part of this report, but there is a percentage of people who live in san francisco and work outside of san francisco,
12:51 pm
possibly 10 to 15%. i don't know exact numbers. but this would be a focus group which would be concentrated more on the employers. find out who the employers are. and we pretty much know because a lot of them have big buses that come through san francisco. and find out what factors we could correct to have them move more of their work force here because everybody wins if you don't have people spending two hours a day traveling to and from their place of employment and not to mention the effects on the environment, but just the cost factors. but i think you can use a report like this to be a fool and help us to make our decisions, but also formulate city policy to address some of the shortcomings. * a tool >> absolutely. >> sugaya. >> yes. is there any correlation between what we're calling
12:52 pm
p-d-r on page 16 and manufacturing which is back on page 40? >> good question. >> because it seems like -- i have to just finish my observation. >> sure. >> because on p-d-r we're down over the 2002-11 years by 26%. it went up slightly in the middle years there, in 2006 and '07. if you go back to page 40 and look at the manufacturing totals, it's pretty surprising that in 2011 we have more information jobs than we did back in 2002. so, you don't have to answer that question now. but if, you know, i don't know if p-d-rs totally -- if manufacturing is a broader category or if it encompasses p-d-r or what the -- >> well, what might be useful
12:53 pm
now, i look at that number and see if it's a mistake or not because that does look a little odd. the difference between p-d-r and manufacturing and manufacturing is an industrial sector, economic sector. and, i'm sorry, manufacturing is an industrial economic sector. and p-d-r is actually one of our land use categories that we've created ourselves to relate employment to land use policy decisions. >> right. >> and there's a lot of manufacturing in p-d-r. >> it includes warehousing and car repair and things that are not related to manufacturing directly. >> it is interesting that under the manufacturing category that lists north bay, east bay, including san francisco, that the san francisco employment went from 8.7 to 22 in one year. >> i mean, that sounds good to me because it diversifies the
12:54 pm
economy if that's true. >> and i think that is borne out by some of the recent discussions we've had with sf may and their members. there's a lot of new small, for lack of a better term, boutique manufacturing that is starting up in the city right now. and they are seeing their membership grow substantially largely from new companies. and it is a' having an imp there is a second discussion of p-d-r. overall 26% varies substantially by sector. there's one sector manufacturing -- other manufacturing, i believe, where it's dropped off quite a bit, then it's picked up. so, we're kind of seeing some of the same effect there. * tech difficulty >> commissioner antonini. >> one final thing on your
12:55 pm
regional distribution. you may not have control over this. it may be drawn up by abag or somebody else. east bay, south bay and san francisco. the south bay includes san mateo and santa clara counties. i hardly think of [speaker not understood]. it's really you need a separate category for the peninsula, you know, and makes the distribution a little bit more realistic in terms of what people -- most people think about and one would assume that should be san mateo county and the south bay should be santa clara and perhaps santa cruz county, but most of the population and businesses are in santa clara. the east bay categories and the north bay categories seem to be fairly straightforward, but the one for the south bay seems to be skewed in a way that is not really accurate and the distances from san francisco for some of the places and san
12:56 pm
mateo county are very short. so, might want to revise that. >> we'll give that some thought definitely. that would involve doing it for the whole time series. good point, well taken. thank you. >> i don't think there are any further questions. thank you. >> very good, thank you. >> commissioners, it will place you under general public comment, not to exceed a period of 15 minutes. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. i have two speaker cards. >> thank you. gail kale and dino [speaker not understood]. good afternoon. my name is gail cahil.
12:57 pm
i'm a former deputy city attorney for the city and county of san francisco. my husband is retired court judge cahill and he worked extensive with george wong to bring that project in on time and under budget. we're here, i mention that because of the process that will be on follow for any proposal to develop piers 30-32 and seawall lot 30. we are watching what is happening with alarm. i mentioned to you in an e-mail i wrote to you all last week my concerns about the public workshop that i could not attend, the haste with with this project is moving forward is frightening. i did a tedv -- attend the workshop that was held this monday. my ultimate fear is all of these public workshops are being held in a way that really renders public discussion and public input essentially meaningless. not only is that not good for the first workshop, but at this
12:58 pm
workshop i was surprised we both were surprised to find not only our discussions and comments were limited by [speaker not understood] oriented questionnaire, but that through the process seated at our table was someone lobbying for the project that was supposed to be a public session to garner public input from the people in the neighborhood who would have to live with whatever is built there. this rushed process that is going to culminate in about 13 days if all goes according to schedule, with the warriors filing for environmental review on the wednesday before thanksgiving is unprecedented and it is scary. it also to our mind, the inevitable effect of not only engendering carelessness, but it will invite litigation. we both are warriors fans. we welcome the thought if warriors come back to san francisco but only as a fair, forthright and comprehensive process which we both expected to be much more time consuming that makes sure they land in the right place and with dignity to the neighborhood.
12:59 pm
i hope that one or more of you would be interested enough in this issue to ask for some further review and report from staff on what's happening. thank you for your time. >> thank you. good afternoon, president, staff, commissioners, and members of the public. dino [speaker not understood]. it's been wonderful studying urban planning with the commission. so, thank you guys for having us. i brought a statistic, a little bit of data that the commission had touched on before. what it states is we have 6 58 cars per thousand residents in the city. it's 14th among american cities. some to note in front of us are boston, san antonio, los angeles, and new york. new york has the lowest ratio with 4 72 cars for a thousand residents. and again, san francisco is at 6 58. it will be interesting to see how this number declines as